Jury Nullification
I’m all for it. There are so many stupid laws that need to be struck down. The fact remains that juries are often mislead, lied to, and bullied by the powers that be. Radley Balko addresses jury nullification in this FoxNews piece:
The doctrine of jury nullification (search) rests on two truths about the American criminal justice system: (1) Jurors can never be punished for the verdict they return, and (2) Defendants cannot be retried once a jury has found them not guilty, regardless of the jury’s reasoning. So the juries in both the Rosenthal and Paey cases could have returned a “not guilty” verdict, even though Paey and Rosenthal were undoubtedly guilty of the charges against them.
This may sound radical, perhaps even subversive, but jury nullification serves as an important safeguard against unjust laws, as well as against the unfair application of well-intended laws. It’s also steeped in American and British legal tradition.
Patterico dissents from Balko’s endorsement of jury nullification, noting:
In a competent judge’s courtroom, all jurors are asked if they are willing to follow the law, regardless of whether they agree with it. They must answer this question in the affirmative or they cannot sit as jurors. And they must answer this question under oath.
Rendering a verdict is following the law, though I’m certain he means a juror states they are willing to convict based on the law. I disagree with his conclusion because, at some point, someone has to stand up and state that something is unjust, unfair, or just fucking stupid. And, given that jurors are often kept in the dark regarding lots of things, it’s not like jury nullification is really an issue. Though I do wish it was. I also wish we had Congressional nullification.
Update: Good debate going on in the comments at Patterico’s, if you’re into that sort of thing. Apparently, California lawyers don’t like it.
July 29th, 2005 at 12:06 pm
Heh. Yeah, the cops has discretion aplenty on whether to arrest or merely warn you. The Prosecutor’s office has discretion aplenty on whether to charge you for a crime or crimes (and what charges to bring, and what penalties to ask for). The judge is a tinpot god in his own courtroom.
But if the JURORS show the slightest bit of independent thought, civilization will collapse into flaming ruin.
I’m…skeptical.
July 29th, 2005 at 12:45 pm
Prosecutors have already tried to punish a juror in WA for not volunteering info during Voir Dire.
It got chucked out on appeal … it seems they didn’t mirandize the jury or offer to provide lawyers during this questioning.
July 29th, 2005 at 3:54 pm
Do lawyers from any state like it? Come to think of it, does anyone who’s made it through at least one year of law school without flunking out like it? That’s about the point where I flipped on the issue IIRC.
July 29th, 2005 at 5:30 pm
I agree with Mark Jones…prosecutors and the police have all this discretion, why shouldn’t a jury? If two people commit a crime and a prosecutor decides to cut a deal with one of them to get the other, why shouldn’t juries be able to second guess the prosecutor?
However, I would limit jury nullification to criminal cases.
February 5th, 2007 at 10:02 am
[…] That would be this one, said over at Say Uncle’s, back in July 2005: # Mark Jones Says: Link to this comment […]